Whites, usually but not always liberals, tell blacks brazen lies. This is not conventional deceit in which liars try to profit from cleverly hoodwinking listeners. Nor are whites cloaking harsh reality with kind euphemisms. Rather, the mendacity is so bold and so unconcealed that the usual deterrent to lying–being exposed and punished as a fabricator–does not deter. All this open spewing of falsehoods is all the more remarkable because it occurs in a culture that, at least in principle, cherishes truth.

Consider the following examples:

In a well-publicized 2007 conference called to address lagging black academic achievement, Jack O’Connell, California’s chief of public schools, announced the gap’s true cause: Black youngsters attend churches that encourage the congregation to clap, speak loudly, and be a bit raucous–behavior deemed inappropriate in schools. According to Mr. O’Connell, if teachers take more sensitivity training to “appreciate” this learning style, African-American scores will improve. He offered no evidence linking church attendance to school performance nor, for that matter, did he have any information on how whites who attend similarly boisterous churches perform academically.

In an April 2007 National Public Radio discussion with Melinda Gates, an interviewer mentioned a Gates website statement claiming that all American youngsters possess college-relevant skills and could earn a high school diploma, and that all could then attend college. When Mrs. Gates was asked if this were really possible, she emphatically said “yes.” To emphasize the point, she told the interviewer she had recently visited a largely black and Hispanic Chicago school, and asserted that with the right teachers and expectations, 95 percent to 98 percent of the students would be going to college.

In a 2007 speech before the National Urban League, New York City’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg criticized the then-presidential candidates for offering empty platitudes about fixing the white/black achievement gap. He then offered his own solution for improving black schools: more Advanced Placement courses and programs for intellectually gifted students.

That same year, at a conference on the low academic achievement of blacks attended by many black educators, George Bush’s Secretary of Education, Margaret Spelling, blithely announced that black students who were years behind in reading and math simply need more AP courses in order to catch up with whites.

Craven rationality will nearly always trump idealistic truth seeking.

Meanwhile, Jeb Bush, the former “education governor” of Florida, was honored in a gilded hall in an exclusive Park Avenue club, where he told an appreciative audience that Florida’s education would improve if all high school graduates attended college. That many of those already enrolled cannot do college work, except by taking dumbed-down courses or after extensive remedial work, was irrelevant. Nor did he mention that when huge numbers of black students failed Florida’s high school exit exam, “civil rights” leaders threatened to boycott the state’s lottery and its citrus industry unless standards were substantially lowered.

In 2006, when Michigan voters approved Proposition 2 banning racial preferences in higher education, the University of Michigan’s president, Mary Sue Coleman, warned that the ban would undermine the university’s intellectual excellence. She insisted that diversity makes the university a world-class institution, that affirmative action made the university fair and equal, and that abolishing preferences for blacks would lead Michigan down the path of mediocrity. In fact, the public record showed that blacks admitted under racial preferences rarely met minimal academic standards.

Mary Sue Coleman spouts obvious nonsense.

Less visible than public speech-making are falsehoods offered by academics or think tank scholars. Though they initially target smaller audiences, in the long run they are probably more dangerous because they put the academy’s authoritative stamp on what passes for “truth.” Even worse, these lies frequently find their way into college textbooks and thus may influence generations of impressionable college students. Professorial misrepresentation is also important, as courts increasingly rely on expert testimony when adjudicating lawsuits claiming racial discrimination in employment and education. Recall how the 1954 US Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education struck down school segregation by using fraudulent “research” about children’s preferences for black and white dolls (see “How Judges Wreck Schools,” AR, June 2009).

Examples of such mendacity abound, but only a few must suffice. Michael Holzman, in a Schott Foundation-sponsored study of African-American students in Chicago, blamed insufficient access to tough high-school courses to explain a 63 percent dropout rate. According to the report, black students were unable to achieve proficiency in math because they were denied access to advanced algebra and other AP math subjects, so naturally they left school prematurely. It never seemed to occur to Mr. Holzman that if students who were struggling with arithmetic were required to take advanced algebra, let alone AP algebra, the dropout rate might be even higher.

Linking black academic failure to inadequate educational resources has evolved into a bogus yet almost universally embraced Scientific Truth. If there were a Mendacity Hall of Fame, this “how can they learn when the toilets are broken” argument would have its own wing. Just as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, “everybody knows” that blacks do poorly on standardized tests, fail to graduate, and must take remedial courses if they get into college only because wealthy white suburban schools outspend inner city schools. This assertion is easily disproven with readily available statistics, and it has been repeatedly shown that dramatically increased spending has virtually no effect on test scores. None of this has undermined this counterfeit Scientific Truth. In fact, in a bizarre twisting of logic, it is sometimes argued that no matter how much money is spent on blacks, they will perform inadequately if some whites somewhere get more. According to this thinking, if white schools are defunded black scores will soar.

Just as popular is the totally false assertion that there is a zero connection between race and cognitive ability. Forget about hundreds of studies demonstrating lower average black IQ. The Bell Curve and similar carefully documented books never existed. Just like children who conflate “ought” with “is,” it is alleged that since a difference in mental capacity is bad, it cannot exist. Mary Frasier, an expert in “gifted” education is blunt: “There is no logical reason to expect that the number of minority students would not be proportional to their representation in the general population.” Our friend, California schools chief Jack O’Connell, is even blunter. The race gap in performance, he says, is “absolutely, positively not genetic.”

IQ distribution for blacks, Hispanics, whites, and Asians.We won’t tell you which is which.

Elsewhere, lies about equal intelligence are covered with iffy, convoluted explanations that convince only true believers. Stanley Pogrow, a well-published professor of educational leadership (yes, that is the name of his discipline) tells us that “at-risk students [i.e., blacks and Hispanics] have tremendous levels of intellectual and academic potential,” and that “disadvantaged students are as capable of abstract thought as anyone.” What holds them back is that “the adults in their lives simply do not model thinking processes for them.” The culprit is child-rearing styles. White parents have discussions with their children and use lots of words, while blacks just issue orders and use few words. Black children therefore arrive at school at an intellectual disadvantage.

Professor Pogrow ignores the fact that poor whites often have higher IQs than black children from professional families where, we might assume, parents use a richer vocabulary. The professor similarly seems oblivious to the possibility that limited vocabulary just reflects low IQ, and that attempts to expand vocabulary are therefore doomed. Nor does he seem worried by the evidence that blacks do especially poorly on IQ test items that require abstract reasoning. And why do Head Start and Sesame Streetvocabulary-building programs fail to uplift blacks?

To be fair, Professor Pogrow should not be singled out. He is just part of an industry whose purpose is to concoct spurious, often ad hoc explanations for black/white academic differences, all swathed in academic jargon. Favorite excuses include poor diet and nutrition, exposure to lead paint and car exhaust, inadequate health care, culturally incompetent white teachers, overcrowded classrooms, racially discriminatory school discipline, black disdain for fellow blacks who “act white,” Eurocentric textbooks, low teacher expectations, parental indifference, insufficient pre-school, an anti-intellectual culture, family instability, the absence of black role models, too many inexperienced teachers and, of course, the pervasive white racism that mysteriously debilitates young blacks well before kindergarten. None of these has withstood scientific scrutiny but all survive as if they were Scientific Laws.

Realizing the delusion.

One of the most devious (and seldom recognized) academically instigated lies is based on a purposely misleading research design “to demonstrate” that with proper schooling blacks can perform at the white level. Here’s how the charade works. First, a largely black school is showered with resources: a longer school day, exceptionally dedicated teachers, incentives such as trips to theme parks, a “white” curriculum stressing basics, along with other advantages not found in typical minority schools.

The KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program) schools are the favorite example. They typically run from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., with instruction every other Saturday and classes in the summer, with the result that KIPP students spend about 60 percent more time in class than other students. They are subject to strict classroom discipline, and KIPP requires a formal commitment from families. When test scores approach white levels, it’s Eureka: “See, if we just try hard enough the achievement gaps disappears.”

This claim is false over and above the well-known problems of self-selection and retention bias (students who sign up for the rigors of KIPP are not typical minorities from typical minority families, and the ones that make it through are even less typical). Nor, given the huge pressures to raise black and Hispanic performance, can one entirely rule out the possibility of inflated grading or outright cheating.

The technically correct approach to a comparison of this kind would be to give a white school identical resources and then compare outcomes, while doing nothing extra for typical black and white schools that would serve as controls. It is entirely possible that after 60 percent more instruction the racial test scores gaps at the two experimental schools would be even greater than at the controls. However, one thing is certain: Unless a white school gets the same treatment, the bump in performance among black students says nothing about closing the racial gap. Any decently trained researcher will recognize the methodological flaws here, but America’s yearning to close gaps encourages blindness.

There is another variation on this lie-by-faulty-design. It is to take small gains among blacks and statistically project them into the future so as to “predict” the eventual disappearance of the race-related gap in learning.

Why all the lying?

What can possibly explain this parade of deliberate falsehoods, deceits that crumble upon even cursory inspection? I am not a psychic but let me broach some possibilities.

First, by contradicting plain-to-see reality, the liar publicly embraces a black political agenda that overflows with self-esteem-boosting misinformation. Indeed, the bolder the racial untruth uttered by a white, the higher the moral ground he gains. When Melinda Gates insisted that 98 percent of all blacks should attend college, she achieved instant civil-rights sainthood. This honor would not be forthcoming if she had been more reasonable and said that every intellectually talented African American–perhaps the smartest 25 percent–should give college a try.

Jeb Bush’s promise to get every black into college is tantamount to saying to them: “Trust me. I will, by hook or crook, bestow college diplomas on those who can barely crawl onto a college campus.” Mr. Bush’s tactic is actually rational. After all, what does it take to follow a fast-changing, often befuddled racial party line? Who can best sniff out the zigs and zags of ever-shifting politically correct realities? A pathological liar, obviously. Perhaps next year Mr. Bush will announce a program to guarantee every black a high-paying executive job.

A chapel on campus does not stop lies from thriving.

This strategy works equally well whether the aim is to please black voters or to elect the next president of the American Sociology Association. The habitual truth-teller is the uncontrollable Wild Man in today’s racial politics. When a choice must be made, always elect the cravenly dishonest; he is always the most dutiful ally in today’s politically correct times.

There is even a Darwinian benefit to open lying; it promotes group solidarity. If 2 + 2 = 5 is the official orthodoxy, then standing before a crowd and enthusiastically proclaiming 2 + 2 = 5 is the rite de passage to separate the faithful from non-believers.

Self-debasement is probably a mechanism hard-wired into human evolution as a way to submit to the group. In outlaw motorcycle gangs, for example, some initiation rituals require prospective members to lie on the floor in full regalia while members urinate on them. In some gangbanger initiations the members surround new recruits and beat them bloody. In politics, candidates for public office seeking black votes must solemnly tell civil rights groups that closing the racial gap is not just possible; it is America’s highest educational priority. With a few dishonest utterances, the candidate “joins the program,” and if he repeats them often enough, he may actually come to believe them.

Deliberate lying is also useful for softening unwelcome news–armor for the bad news messenger, so to speak. It is impossible to dwell honestly on current black realities in today’s intellectual climate, so falsehoods can sugarcoat bitter pills. This is hardly new. Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s infamous 1965 report, “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action,” about soaring illegitimacy among blacks, gratuitously claimed that “there is absolutely no question of any genetic differential: intelligence potential is distributed among Negro infants in the same proportion and pattern as among Icelanders or Chinese or any other group.” He provided no evidence for this false claim, which he no doubt hoped would be his “Get Out of Jail Free” card to keep him from being pilloried for mentioning black pathology.

What all young blacks are yearning to do.

A cynic might add that flagrant, flattering lies help manage black unruliness; they are just one more item in the keep-them-mollified package of public jobs, affirmative action, set asides, gerrymandered minority-majority election districts, and school textbooks portraying Timbuktu as a center of great scholarship. When Mayor Bloomberg announces that struggling African Americans trailing their white classmates in arithmetic could excel if only their schools offered AP math, he is assuring blacks that they are smart enough to master calculus. The same is true for the endlessly repeated dishonest calls to pour yet more science-education money into schools with large black enrollments because America’s future depends on mobilizing every ounce of our scientific talent, especially African Americans. In other words, blacks are potential rocket scientists but just lack the opportunity to display this talent.

Outrageous fabrications could even be socially acceptable expressions of contempt. Imagine a candidate for office who privately believes blacks are stupid but is nevertheless required to grovel before the NAACP. Angry at being forced into this demeaning act, he offers up one barefaced lie after another. In effect, he insults the group’s intelligence by telling them that “everyone knows” tests like the SAT are culturally biased and that redneck cops love to arrest innocent blacks. The more the audience laps this up, the better the speaker feels. Later that night he can tell his wife that blacks are so stupid they actually believed all the nonsense he told them! What appears to be self-debasement is transformed into an ego-saving expression of contempt via mountains of dishonest baloney. Conning the audience sustains the speaker’s self-respect.

Finally, lying about blacks can be a cheap ticket to media attention, given the mainstream’s hunger for “good news” on race–or even just repackaged statements of orthodoxy. Academics hankering for their 15 minutes of fame may be particularly vulnerable. Years ago, one reasonably accomplished but still obscure Ivy League professor of my acquaintance suddenly embraced the “white racism is the mother of all evil” doctrine and, voilà, he rose from obscurity.

I personally know a distinguished historian long famous for her “conservative” views on education. She recently did a total about-face, asserting, among other dubious claims, that racial differences in academic achievement were entirely the result of poverty. This new-found “liberal” view brought immense favorable media attention and countless speaking engagements.

You may recall Richard Nisbett’s book, Intelligence and How to Get It. In an instant, a once unheard-of University of Michigan psychology professor became the darling of the New York Times and its op-ed columnists by boldly asserting that “genes account for none of the difference in IQ between blacks and whites.” Not only is this statement empirically false (and Prof. Nisbett probably knows it) but the Times refused to print a detailed rejoinder from Philippe Ruston and Arthur Jensen, two of the world’s most eminent experts on genes and IQ.

Ambitious academics quickly grasp that lying about race is usually the best strategy for getting public and private research grants. Fundraising and the publications that result from it are greatly rewarded in academia, and the notorious liberal bias in grant awards is an open invitation to dishonesty. Race realism usually means pessimism and unkind words. This all too easily becomes “racism,” and few government agencies or private foundations would risk funding a “racist” project. A savvy professor interested in, say, early childhood intervention, is well advised to cherry pick past successes and minimize arguments that suggest hereditary factors in intelligence. No government bureaucrat wants to be interrogated by a Congressional Black Caucus member on why his agency approved a study showing that low black IQ limited academic performance. It is best to remain silent on racial unpleasantness, take the money, and run.

Illustrations and explanations can surely be multiplied but several things are clear. First, as far as I can tell, no white, particularly no prominent figure or distinguished academic, has ever been criticized publicly for race-related lies that flatter blacks. Liars of the correct ideological stripe enjoy diplomatic immunity. Moreover, I suspect that nearly all white voters understand this lying game and grudgingly accept it. I cannot recollect a single white office-seeker being defeated because he kowtowed to blacks by misrepresenting reality.

Jack O’Connell’s call for boosting test scores by requiring teachers to appreciate boisterous black church behavior probably drew endless private laughs, but nobody demanded a recall election on the grounds that his “analysis” demonstrated gross incompetence. No University of Michigan professor in his right mind would openly dispute Mary Sue Coleman’s ridiculous claim that black academic deficiencies were an institutional asset. Her falsehood no doubt solidified her campus position.

Michael Bloomberg: certainly no fool.

One also suspects that this lying by whites is consistent with a widespread, but almost never publicly acknowledged view that blacks are particularly gullible on the subject of race. We can imagine Mayor Bloomberg’s speech writers almost subconsciously gravitated to a pleasing fantasy: “These people will believe anything, so let’s pull out all the stops.” His speech writers would be far more careful if Mayor Bloomberg were to address a convention of largely white media executives. Can you imagine him extolling racial diversity as a way to boost corporate profits?

The idea that whites and blacks differ in their appreciation of truth may be so deeply ingrained in our culture that many whites believe that hoodwinking African Americans is a snap. Given the risks of speaking the truth, deception becomes an irresistible lure. Of course, blacks are not the only ones who are easily duped. Whitney Tilson, who is white, is a director of an influential pressure group within the Democratic Party called Democrats for Education Reform. He heaped praise on Mayor Bloomberg’s speech and said he hoped some Democrat would have “the guts–and the wisdom–to give a speech on education like this one!”

An interesting question is whether blacks believe the lies whites tell them. My guess is that that most blacks don’t, but they enjoy hearing them anyhow. Pleasing, white-supplied dissimulation is a form of cheap therapy. But if you judge blacks by their behavior–their preference for white lawyers and doctors in high-stakes situations, a steadfast belief in the benefits of racial integration, the black male penchant for marrying lighter-skinned black women–many blacks must have private doubts about current orthodoxy.

Even so, they doubtless enjoy the spectacle of whites, especially prominent whites, lying to please them. It’s a power trip. A black audience may know perfectly well that offering AP calculus will not reverse high drop-out rates, but it must bring great pleasure to witness the high and mighty Secretary of Education make this sham claim. At least at that moment, black power becomes a reality.

The bottom line is that the obstacles against frankness about race are nearly insurmountable. For whites, lying has no costs, and has the benefit of keeping blacks happy. Telling the truth offers no benefits but has great risks. The debate is also rigged–blatant falsehoods favorable to blacks go unchallenged while negative assessments almost always require impossible-to-satisfy scientific proof. The truth is supposed to set you free, but at least in this case, it sets you free from your job. Just ask Trent Lott, James Watson, and many others. Distinguished academics who care about the truth receive death threats, have their lectures disrupted, and are investigated for hate speech.

The real losers when whites lie are, of course, blacks who are shielded from an awkward reality. This is classic killing with kindness. Imagine if Mayor Bloomberg spoke honestly to the Urban League and implored black leaders to insist upon school discipline, tough standards, and inculcating a strong work ethic among black students instead of blaming failure on the lack of AP courses. This is sound advice and perhaps his listeners would privately recognize its wisdom, but such frankness would have been a PR catastrophe. Black listeners would feel obligated to denounce the mayor as a racist. Mr. Bloomberg may be a liar but he is not a fool.

Diogenese would be no more popular in New York or Washington than he was in Athens.

In a nutshell, whites lie about race because it is rational, and craven rationality will nearly always trump idealistic truth seeking. It is a matter of incentives: liars are rewarded, truth-tellers punished. Both whites and blacks are equally guilty in this infatuation with mendacity, though for different reasons. When all is said and done, dishonesty makes perfect sense in a society where keeping the racial peace is paramount, and no one cares about really curing anybody’s pathologies or scoring points as a truth teller.

Diogenes of Sinope, the man who went about with a lantern looking for an honest man, was loathed by his fellow Greeks. He lived in poverty and was eventually captured by pirates and sold into slavery.

Dr. Greenberg is a retired academic. This article is adapted from a talk he gave at the 2011 AR conference.

Reply to Dr. Greenberg

by Jared Taylor

Dr. Greenberg has written a witty and insightful essay, which I read with admiration. At the same time, it left me wondering: Are all these people whom Dr. Greenberg quotes deliberately, consciously lying? If everyone from Jeb Bush to Melinda Gates to Mary Sue Coleman to Secretary of Education Margaret Spelling is cynically lying about black ability, it means that just about nobody in America believes the liberal nonsense anymore.

Leonid Brezhnev.

Is the whole country really engaged in a fantastic game of make believe? I don’t think so–for several reasons. First, except for psychopaths like Bill Clinton, people are not comfortable telling deliberate, sustained lies, year in year out. They may be wrong–comically wrong–but normal people need to believe what they say. And normal people are good at believing things that are not true. Plenty of louts think they are charming, and plenty of people who have never traveled abroad think their own country is the best in the world. As Voltaire liked to point out, man is a most deceptive creature, but the person he most frequently deceives is himself.

Given the prevailing structure of taboos, and for all the reasons Dr. Greenberg gives, it is clearly in Melinda Gates’ interests to deceive herself on the subject of blacks. Therefore, when she burbles about 98 percent of them being capable of college work, she is certainly not fooling Dr. Greenberg, but she probably is fooling herself.

I don’t think American orthodoxy has reached the Brezhnev stage. In the waning days of the Soviet Union, its citizens used to joke that they pretended to work and the state pretended to pay them. No one believed in scientific socialism or the classless society, but everyone mouthed Marxist platitudes because he had to. Dr. Greenberg is, in effect, arguing that we have reached the Brezhnev stage, and that Americans are just as cynical as the Soviets, and for the same reason: survival requires it.

We may be headed that way, but we are not there yet. I know too many people, for whom the costs of telling me what they really think would be zero, who defend the official line. They still believe, despite the evidence.

I also think that if Americans were as undeceived about race as Dr. Greenberg suggests, many would be edging towards a confession. Even criminals yearn to confess to someone, for heaven’s sake. If the entire power structure really knew the score, it would have breathed a huge, collective sigh of relief when The Bell Curve was published or when James Watson blurted out the truth. Who wants to be the last chump trying to prop up a clapped out orthodoxy? At the first crack in the monolith, governors and university presidents would be elbowing each other out of the way to get to the microphones and say they never believed that rubbish.

Dr. Greenberg would no doubt argue that the shrieking about The Bell Curve and Dr. Watson was so frantic precisely becauseeveryone knew the facts, but I don’t think people are so harshly cynical. They will not destroy the career of the world’s most famous scientist in order to defend what they know is a lie. If that really is the way Americans think and behave, the country is not just a mess; it doesn’t deserve to be salvaged.

James Watson: The truth set him free–from his job.

Dr. Greenberg might argue that the country is willing to destroy Dr. Watson’s reputation in the name of a lie because our rulers believe it to be a noble lie. We must all pretend blacks and Hispanics are as smart as whites because if the truth came out there would be riots, and whites would avoid non-whites even more diligently than they do already, and maybe even start mistreating them.

Some people probably believe that but, first of all, they are wrong, and second, I don’t think there are many of them. I have written elsewhere about why they are wrong (see “The Hollow Debate on Race Preferences,” AR, June 2003), and there cannot be that many of them because if there were a broad, cynical, ruling-class-wide agreement to lie about the abilities of blacks and Hispanics, someone would have defected and told us about it. You cannot have tens of thousands of people pledged to a collective lie without someone spilling the beans.

There is a third and decisive reason why I think the vast majority of whites still believe: orthodoxy has a terrible cost to their country and to their children. If there is no such thing as race, and if diversity is an unalloyed joy, and if blacks are little geniuses waiting to blossom, and if Mexicans are going to rejuvenate our society and save Social Security, then everything our rulers say they want makes sense. But if not, Third-Worlders will drag the country into degeneracy and squalor, and they will despise the whites who have let them do it–including the children and grandchildren of our rulers.

If Jeb Bush is as clear-headed as Dr. Greenberg thinks he is, he knows that the increasingly mish-mash population of Florida is not going to erect a bronze statue in his memory as a champion of affirmative action and amnesty for illegals. He knows that mish-mash Florida will write him off as yet another no-account white man who was the last gasp of a pathetic gringo power structure that deserved to die long ago. People may do all manner of contemptible things to save or advance their careers, but they do not knowingly condemn their children to life as members of a despised minority in an increasingly unlivable country.

Even if our rulers were utterly clear-headed about race but thought they must defend the “noble lie” about IQ to keep blacks from rioting, it would not follow that they would pretend to be pleased at the prospect of the country filling up with Mexicans. If they were one quarter as savvy as Dr. Greenberg thinks, they would reduce the price the country pays for this lie by supporting any not-explicitly-racial policy that reduced the influx of low IQ non-whites. They would demand a sane immigration policy and ensure that it was enforced. They would not be howling about “racial profiling” when Arizona and Alabama pass laws to keep out illegal immigrants.

Yes, egalitarians really do believe that Somali Bantus are just like us.

Our cynical but farsighted rulers would discover all the excellent, non-racial reasons to reduce immigration. “Of course, Haitians and Guatemalans and Somali Bantus are just as smart as we are,” they would say, but they would patiently explain why they had to be kept out: More manual laborers compete with their beloved blacks for jobs, our infrastructure is overburdened, a rising population harms our quest for energy independence, children who do not speak English are a burden on schools, immigrants are more likely than natives to go on the dole, federal law must be obeyed, etc., etc. Their favorite argument would be the environment: Curbing population growth will preserve wetlands, improve air quality, stop sprawl, keep America green, and save the whales. Imagine how self-righteous Mary Sue Coleman could sound.

In other words, if the elites were as undeceived as Dr. Greenberg says, they would promote the ignoble lie and destroy Dr. Watson but still keep low-g Third-Worlders out. They don’t keep them out because they really do believe.

I suspect Dr. Greenberg’s difficulty is this: The truth is blindingly–hideously–obvious to him. He cannot imagine how anyone with the brains of a kumquat could fail to see the truth. Most of our rulers are not mentally retarded. Therefore, when they babble about black potential rocket scientists going to waste, they must be lying. On this assumption, Dr. Greenberg has built his charming article.

If only he were right. If suicidal white elites at least accepted facts, they might be willing to think about implications. But equality is religion to them. They spout foolishness because they believe foolishness. And that is why they are willing to destroy the country their own children will inherit.

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.

Anonymous

I kind of have a middle position: most people are aware of the lie but they don’t quite understand significance of it. They believe that by avoiding black neighborhoods and schools (something most liberals also do), they can avoid the whole contentious issue.

I used to believe liberals had high ideals but were misguided in practice. Now I believe most liberals are fully aware and use deception wantonly. Seeing liberals for what they are has helped me in dealing with them. Now I am free to show them contempt when arguing with them. I let them know early on that their name calling means nothing to me. I see them for the liars that they are.

Many people will not resist the liberal onslaught. It is easier to not get too involved.

Jared, just about everyone has something to lose in exposing the lie. I admire your courage and sacrifice you made in exposing the lie and trying to educate people on the consequences continuing the current path. But you paid a price that most are not willing to pay.

Most liberals make a living off liberal policies and conservatives also know not to confront the lie. Even wealthy philanthropists know they have to support the lie or their reputation and prestige would plummet.

Jared is right, however, in one sense. The young, high school or college liberals, are indeed true believers. They believe what they learned in college and it will take twenty years of living before they have an epiphany.

Lucas

At the end of the day, “common sense” goes a long way. If we could turn back time and had never had any intervention in Africa at all, where would these people be today?

For the last 250,000 years or more they have lived as stone-age hunter/gathers. Does anyone really believe that you can simply pluck them from the stone-age into modern times and expect them to adapt and assimilate? Through evolution they have acquired the skills necessary for them to survive in a stone-age environment and not in a modern civilzed society.

The reason liberal politicians would have some people believe otherwise is because they pander for votes. Liberals love nothing better than a large class of ignorant voters who will believe whatever they are told and will fall in lockstep with the liberal agenda. In return for their votes these ignorant masses are lavished with lies, excuses, special treatment and other peoples’ money.

Until people have the courage to speak the truth, this will continue.

It is a failed experiment and no one will admit it.

olewhitelady

Before school integration, no one stated that all (white) children should go to college. People openly recognized that many students could not excel. Some could never learn to read, write, and do simple math, regardless of how hard the pupil and educators tried. There was a phrase–“college material”–that’s rarely spoken anymore. If someone had suggested that Johnny, who couldn’t add and subtract, should be placed in trig class to help him, that person would have been ignored as a lunatic.

Everyone who has ever attended school knows that some students are smart and some aren’t. No one could possibly believe that all whites are college material or that all blacks are, regardless of whether they ever attended class with a black.

But the liberals have to find some way, absurd or not, to continue the fiction that 98% of blacks can excel in college. Maybe they figure that they’re safe with the idea that non-reading Kwame should attend college-level Shakespeare class in middle school because they know he most likely never will–and their theory remains safely untested.

Liberals are doing blacks irreparable harm by pushing them to do what 90% cannot. They’re becoming more and more frustrated and violent and striving to bury their woes in ever increasing levels of drug use and promiscuous sex. Maybe that’s what liberals want, since most appear to desire the collapse of Western society. I wish blacks would realize this!

Anonymous

This article, combined with the one on Milwaukee black attacks, and combined with economic turmoil that was on display this week, makes for a potent combination. As I see it, the lies and the violence, so long in place, cannot hold much longer. August 2011 is a watershed for the observant, leading to the mass realization coming soon.

Jake

It should be pointed out that your graph of IQs is only for those populations resident in the United States itself. Black Africans are about one standard deviation further to the left than American blacks, for instance, while those denoted as Asians in Britain would be closer to the Hispanic curve above– since, there, so-called Asians are comprised overwhelmingly of Indians (and not Indians as high in IQ as in the United States) and Pakistanis, and the like, rather than of Chinese, Japanese and Koreans, as here.

naughty rebel post correction

They spout foolishness because they believe foolishness.

That’s a worn out canard. Liberal White elites at the top of the food chain don’t really believe that a black could do the job as well as they could. They are smart, so they are Race Realists. They just spout all the nonsense because they must in order to keep their jobs. Their status depends upon repeating the Diversity Mantra. The only time they must act like the believe it is when the budget rolls around, and they must give out more money to the blacks, while giving themselves a raise at the same time.

The schizophrenia makes them insane, and they take out their pain on lower Whites who won’t get good jobs, because the Affirmative Action Diversities are all in mid management, and they Must be promoted to the top, eventually, and soon.

In the next ten years, any institution not run by a black will be branded “racist” and will be forced to “catch up” by firing the White and giving the job to the least offensive black with the lightest skin possible.

The liberal White elites know the game is up for us, and they just want to hold on to their jobs and pump up their pensions as much as possible before retirement.

They don’t believe in equality, but they don’t mind getting rich while administering like they are trying to make Equality come true.

Stop giving them the benefit of the doubt. They are shrew and conniving, and they are indeed Race Realists. Just look at where they live and where they send their kids to school.

Taylor’s Paved with Good Intentions is a good book, but in it, even he makes the error of assuming Good Intentions of White elites.

Their intentions are worse than evil: Knowing that blacks are inferior, they still promote black interests over those of whites.

Anyone who hurts superior Whites for the benefit of inferior blacks is as despicable as all the worse villains in history combined.

Theodore Bilbo

A more realistic take on this might be, ‘when blacks lie to whites: all the time’. But at least the debate isn’t focusing solely on blacks, almost as if whites don’t exist, which is normally the way the left, right, and center all have it. ‘White Nationalism’ needs to be more about whites, what they are doing, what they are thinking, and what’s best for them. The more we ignore the other, the better. Even blacks know this. Their activists focus solely on black causes. In a sense, it makes their racism much more palatable. And now their racism has become is so ingrained and part of who they are they rarely even need to directly bring up whites. But then again, I did it again myself. I made it all about blacks and they have nothing to do with white nationalism or consciousness raising.

Anonymous

In Canada (and in much of Europe) there are laws against hate speech,so most people are afraid to say what is true. Not only would they lose their jobs and be publicly vilified, they would be dragged before a human rights tribunal.

Another issue is that it seems rude and unpleasant to point out that blacks have a lower average IQ. Blacks aren’t going to take kindly to anyone saying this. Really it is a rather tragic situation. Maybe in pre-industrial societies it wouldn’t matter so much how smart a person was. Being strong and athletic might be more important. But being smart does matter quite a bit in most parts of the world today.

Some countries (including Canada) deal with the problem by simply never collecting any data about race and school performance. In France I think it is illegal to collect such data. But they have been collecting it for years in the US, so I guess that will not change.

No easy answers, that is for sure. But at least now that we have the Internet and sites such as this there is now a way to talk with like-minded people.

John Engelman

Elites throughout the West are living a lie, basing the futures of their societies on the assumption that all groups of people are equal in all respects. Lie is a strong word, but justified. It is a lie because so many elite politicians who profess to believe it in public do not believe it in private. It is a lie because so many elite scholars choose to ignore what is already known and choose not to inquire into what they suspect. We enable ourselves to continue to live the lie by establishing a taboo against discussion of group differences.

The taboo is not perfect—otherwise, I would not have been able to document this essay—but it is powerful. Witness how few of Harvard’s faculty who understood the state of knowledge about sex differences were willing to speak out during the Summers affair. In the public-policy debate, witness the contorted ways in which even the opponents of policies like affirmative action frame their arguments so that no one can accuse them of saying that women are different from men or blacks from whites. Witness the unwillingness of the mainstream media to discuss group differences without assuring readers that the differences will disappear when the world becomes a better place.

People learn early in life that it is painful and fruitless to turn inward with the prevalent values and perspectives, to scan their motivations, intents and means.

Rationality is optional within a society because beings can survive by imitating, repeating and the extrapolation of the ideas and motions of others.

Anonymous

There is way both Greenberg and Taylor can be correct – remember, this is not necessarily an either/or position!

Oswald Spengler wrote in his 1934 reactionary classic “The Hour of Decision” that there are two basic types of leftist-liberal subversives:

“But there are two sorts of Communist. The one, the credulous type, obsessed by doctrine or feminine sentimentality, remote from and hostile to the world, condemns the wealth of the wicked who prosper and also, at times, the poverty of the good who do not prosper. This lands him either in vague Utopias or throws him back upon asceticism, the monastic life, Bohemia, or vagabondism, which proclaims the futility of all economic effort.

But the other, the “worldly” type with the realist political outlook, hopes through its followers to destroy society, either from envy or revenge, because of the low place assigned in it to their personality and talents, or, alternatively, to carry away the masses by some program or other for the satisfaction of his own will-to-power. But this, too, likes to hide itself under the cloak of some religion.”

So in the movement there can be a symbiotic relationship between naive, gullible dupes that are genuinely inspired by abstract ideals AND cynical huckstering bastards that seek to make a nice living for themselves by exploiting the idealistic superstitions of the former group. This latter type is usually made up of brutal materialists who care only about their own welfare – what do they care if they promotes policies that personally benefit them but would perhaps doom civilization after their own death?

Mao Zedong might have been a good example of a very influential leftist who did not really believe in his own rhetoric, or large parts of it:

“It was his single-minded pursuit of power that made Mao so successful. His rivals actually believed the Marxist claptrap. They took their orders from the party hierarchy and earnestly tried to implement many silly and impossible programs. When Mao gained the support of Moscow, his Chinese contemporaries felt their hands were tied; they knew he was trouble, but they couldn’t get rid of him.

Mao operated under no such restriction. He eliminated enemies and friends — as it suited him. He listened to Moscow when he wanted to; when Moscow gave him directions he didn’t like, he ignored them. He was not a “good communist.” He was hardly a communist at all.

“Communism is not love,” he said. “Communism is a hammer we use to crush the enemy.””

Anonymous

“There is a third and decisive reason why I think the vast majority of whites still believe: orthodoxy has a terrible cost to their country and to their children.”

Mr. Taylor is sort of refuting his own point if he considers this as the most important element of liberal faith: for this is not an example of genuine idealistic faith, but of fearful, half-conscious self-deception. Liberal middle-class Whites are afraid that if the races are not equal there will be some very unpleasant consequences, consequences that they are too soft to face courageously. Thus they react in a cowardly hedonistic manner and try to put unpleasant things out of their sight and out of their minds.

“If that idea is true, that would mean some very bad things, so it just cannot be true.”

Harumphty Dumpty

To say that a person lies posits that the concept of true/untrue is on the person’s personal radar at all.

It may seem strange to many of us, but many people hardly think in terms of “true” and “untrue.” They manage their affairs by relying on their animal instinct for the path of least resistance. For them the word “true” would mean something like “it works for me.”

This cosmic truth was revealed to me when I was briefly involved in multi-level marketing.

Of course academics of necessity have more contact with the distinction true/not true, but apparently many are able to regard that distinction as just a rule that governs an abstract game of scholarship that they play.

To regard the distinction true/untrue as also the starting point in managing the affairs of a society is a mode of thinking that is foreign to them.

RandyB

Whites, when making decisions for themselves and their families, know that blacks have lower IQ and behavior deficits. However, liberal whites truly believe that the difference is not genetic; it’s the result of historical oppression and could be overcome with multiple generations of appropriate interventions (which whites owe them). If today’s offspring of a low-education welfare mother can be raised to do skilled manual labor, his children can go to college, and grandchildren can be societal leaders.

Liberal whites just don’t think their own children should go to a school whose resources are directed to raising black skills to “basic” or family live in a neighborhood full of (white-caused) black behavioral deficits.

Tom Iron

Here’s a third position. Many/most people who actually believe all this stuff about blacks being able to do things they obviously can’t are mentally desturbed to the point of insanity.

Tom Iron…

John Engelman

Conservatives are nearly as complicit as liberals when it comes to lying about the relationship between genes, intelligence, success in life, crime, and race. This is not a subject most conservatives like to think about. Most want to believe that hard work and integrity will make anyone prosperous, and that there is consequently moral significance in the distribution of wealth and income.

Anonymous

I think the distinction between truth and lies is only clear to rational people. Most people believe contradictry things at once, and are both lying and telling what they believe at the same time,

And Bill Clinton isn’t a psychopath.

sbuffalonative

I’m not sure if it’s about lying, a desperate need to believe, or victims of a con.

Most high profile elites have little contact with average blacks. What they see are the few and highly selected blacks that are paraded in front of them who have achieved something to a limited degrees with the help of special programs and extraordinary extra help.

This is done to make them believe that with the right resources and the right programs, any black can achieve anything.

Melinda Gates was likely hoodwinked by people who wormed their way into her circle of influence so they could influence her. She was shown a couple black kids who ‘made it’ and she erroneously extrapolates that given the right program, any black child can make it.

Melinda Gates and others are being lied to and conned by both true believers, liars, and con artits.

Once can’t make objective decisions if they are given highly selective and limited data.

It’s highly likely to me that Melinda Gates and others want to believe that there is a solution to ‘the gap’ so they are easily conned and ready to promote the lie.

Anonymous

When someone highly regarded, qualified and knowledgeable in such matters as Richard Dawkins himself is a party to such lies, what can you expect of politicians? There is no hope.

Anonymous

“Taylor’s Paved with Good Intentions is a good book, but in it, even he makes the error of assuming Good Intentions of White elites.”

Indeed, when these elite types are not actively hostile towards traditional White culture, they are often at least sociopathically indifferent – coldly, selfishly neutral about vital issues that one who cares about the future of his civilization is not allowed to be neutral about.

During the last few decades the Western world has been led by people who have followed the doctrines of moral degenerates like homosexual famous economist J.M. Keynes (to mention just one prominent example).

See, mentally rotten people like this just are NOT going to be that interested in what shape the world is going to be after their own demise (Aprés moi, le déluge!). They often don’t even have children of their own, or they don’t seriously care about even them:

“The economist Joseph Schumpeter was insightful in connecting Keynes’ “childless” and “essentially…short-run” philosophy of life. A person committed to homosexuality is without descendants, there is little to focus his attention on the future, on “the long run.” It is appropriate that Keynes is popularly remembered for his quip “in the long run we are all dead.” As his biographer, Robert Skidelsky noted, Keynes’ had a “lifelong bias against long-run thinking” and “He was not prepared to risk too much of the present for the sake of a better future….” It is no wonder that he spoke derisively of “the hoarding instinct as the foundation…for the family and for the future”; for him thrift, family and concern for the future were inextricably linked.

According to Keynes (in an essay sardonically entitled “Possibilities For Our Grandchildren”) an individual’s concern for the future is a “disgusting morbidity,” and a “semi-criminal, semi-pathological” propensity that should be treated as a mental disease.”

Antidote

This is the How and Why of it:

Indoctrination- We have had sixty years, three generations, of print, film, school, church, Broadway, Hollywood, Madison Ave and gubmint egalitarian messages. Believe me, most of them are true believers. Advertising works.

Religious Belief/Ideology- Racial Equalitarianism is now part of new public pseudo religion which has largely replaced Christianity (or infected Christianity beyond remedy). When someone utters “…all men are created equal…” it is intoned with the same spiritual meaning and reverence as “give us this day our daily bread.” To be a race realist is to stand in satanic defiance of the Almighty.

Guilt- We killed all the Indians; we enslaved the Africans; we stole land from Mexico; We dropped bombs on the Japs. Oh we feel so evil and sinful; let’s seek redemption through the new pseudo religion.

Go along to get along- “Hey I don’t believe any of this stuff, but I have to go with the flow. What difference does it make to me and mine as long as I get mine?” But how long will the middle and upper middle class be cocooned from racial invasion (racial justice)? They want to be network anchors today; perhaps tomorrow they will want Frank Rich’s job or Punch Sulzberger’s job. Perhaps they will want a Governor like Sharpton or a President like Kwame Kilpatrick. The sky’s the limit. Nothing but the enslavement or extirpation of the white Race will suffice.

Up until this point White America has been able to pull up stakes and leave, but space and resources and opportunities are dwindling away to nothing. Perhaps a future landscape like Northern Ireland or Yugoslavia is in the cards.

Yes, there has been profound change in “belief” and behaviour, but inherent racial differences have persisted. Sixty years of Lysenko-ism has not changed human nature nor has it changed the achievement gap. Racial differences exist and these differences have consequences for the individual and society.

Jake

“And Bill Clinton isn’t a psychopath.” –Anonymous (# 17)

As someone who voted for Bill Clinton [“Mea maxima culpa!”], in 1992, and who long before that earned a Master of Science degree in Personality and Social Psychology, from one of the top-rated such graduate programs in the nation, I will add my semi-professional opinion to second Mr. Taylor’s attribution: Bill Clinton IS a psychopath! (As a former attorney myself, however, I will not claim that Bill Clinton is “insane”– in the legal sense of that term.) As I subsequently concluded, while reading Robert Caro’s multi-volume biography of Lyndon Johnson, however, Bill Clinton was not, as I had originally assumed, the first such psychopath to hold the highest office in the land….

As for the “debate” between Mr. Taylor and Dr. Greenberg, I believe that the proper context is the social-psychological study of the phenomenon of social orthodoxies, in general. One could ask the same question about why the majority of Americans (and other Westerners, inter alia) claim to believe so devoutly in Christianity, when there is no purely rational basis, whether scientific or historical, on which to base such a belief system. Doubtless, many of the people here will react as hysterically to someone’s daring to question the rational basis of their religious beliefs (be those Christian or otherwise) as politically correct people tend to react to those dissidents who question contemporary PC orthodoxies that are likewise lacking in any factual or rational basis that can be asserted either historically or scientifically. Like its apparently natural predisposition to countenance religious beliefs, the human mind appears to be similarly evolved to favor other forms of social orthodoxy.

Tim in Indiana

There is a third and decisive reason why I think the vast majority of whites still believe: orthodoxy has a terrible cost to their country and to their children. If there is no such thing as race, and if diversity is an unalloyed joy, and if blacks are little geniuses waiting to blossom, and if Mexicans are going to rejuvenate our society and save Social Security, then everything our rulers say they want makes sense. But if not, Third-Worlders will drag the country into degeneracy and squalor, and they will despise the whites who have let them do it—including the children and grandchildren of our rulers.

I think there is some truth in the arguments of both Dr. Greenberg and Mr. Taylor, and at first I was leaning towards Mr. Taylor’s argument. On further reflection, however, I have to go with Dr. Greenberg.

How could whites who are undeceived about race agree to go along with the slow destruction of their country? Because it beats the alternative: the instant destruction of their country.

By that I mean that whites are so terrified of the awesome power of nuclear weapons that the slow descent of their country into a third-world morass seems preferable to the alternative.

After all, there will always be the gated communities into which the upper echelon of whites can retreat, but this is not the case if the whole land becomes a radioactive wasteland. Thus, whites could tell an obvious lie that allows one calamity to happen if they think it would prevent a worse calamity from happening.

Frankly, I think some of our elites actually want this country to sink into a third-world morass, because they think this country then won’t be capable of bombing anyone –or be worth bombing by anyone else!

Greg

I’m in the Taylor camp. Although it is appealing to believe that white liberals know deep-down what they are saying is a lie, I was once not too different from them, racially.

People have incredible capablities of believing something to be true due to emotional associations they form with this worldview. In fact, white racial liberals get so adament about “racism” because they feel an inate sense of moral superiority in denouncing said “racism.”

The media has a huge influence in this department. Blacks are always portrayed as suave, intelligent, cool. Watch any late-night comedy show and see how many jokes actually make fun of Obama. Unlike AmReners, the average white American has an IQ of 100, likes to watch MTV, and thinks about things in a post-racial 21st century milieu. In other words, he is neither introspective, traditionally-focused, nor courageous. The easy way out is to praise minorities while ignoring the potential negative effects whites face.

Gabriel L.

While Taylor is usually correct, I think he may be a bit off on this one. I’ll readily agree that he is partly correct, there are many who drink the koolaid- particularly among the minority left wing followers who are on the left side of the Bell curve who are told what they want to hear and don’t spend much time in thought, and many naive young whites who at a young age want to desperately fit in with what they are told by the media and schools is correct and normal, and who have not yet had the range of real world experiences to see the truth for themselves.

But the list probably ends there. One need not believe what the left is saying to be so selfish and shortsighted as to be willing to accept short-term gains for selling out their extended families long term. It probably starts with little lies and grows as they continue to observe benefits with little personal consequence. This problem has been growing over the past few decades and will continue to grow as the left gets stronger and infects more and more institutions. Children now grow up trained in schools concepts such as the subjectivity of morality, and if they are white, taught that their ancestry is wicked, taught that to think of themselves instead of thinking of being part of a group, etc. Even those that don’t drink the koolaid often rebel against their parents, ancestry and heritage (think of all the anti-Christian resentment among White Nationalists) feeling betrayed by them for being handed the current state of the West. No doubt these feelings are cultivated by the left as well. But for whites who are almost universally taught by the media and schools that it is themselves against the world, instead of being part of a group, there is going to be little thought to consideration of the impact upon others, particularly white others, when they see an opportunity to advance themselves with PC ideology.

I myself observed first hand in a research misconduct incident at a University that not a single professor there who knew about it (all the way to the top of the University) was willing to “do the right thing” and stand up against what was going on. They instead supported their colleague and had a million and one excuses for what happened. And, if they had the mindset that personal gain overrides impact to society, why would they? When you get down to it, how many people are really willing to stand up against something they know is wrong, when it significantly costs them?

MrGJG

Whammo #10 makes a good point:

“I find this discussion quite interesting. I am also amazed that such obviously intelligent and accomplished people could be capable of missing an obvious and glaring conclusion.

This is the third theory that might explain both Dr. Greenberg’s and Mr. Taylor’s POV.

Many of the people arguing in favor of “we’re all equal”, have never really thought about it, as difficult as that is to believe.

Because if what Mr. Taylor is contending to hold water, (that they are not knowingly lying) than the only explanation can be that they aren’t looking.

There are no gray area’s here, the evidence is in, and only those who don’t want to know can believe otherwise.

Duran Dahl

The myth of racial equality is the lynchpin of the anti-white ideology. The system MUST defend this lie at any cost, but only until we hit the demographic tilt. White folks are the only ones who are truth-seekers. Alas, we are also the only race that embraces “fairness” and “objectivity” as moral values. As the rope tightens, and it most assuredly will, sleeping Americans will awaken…in a foul mood. White rage is a force of nature that many have lost their fear of. That situation will be ameliorated to the sorrow of our foes.

Question Diversity

10 MrGJG:

Very plausible theory. It is my experience that a majority of people, in fact most people, like to spout off the occasional bon mot which really has no meaning. They only say it because they think it sounds clever, cute, tolerant and smart coming out of their mouths, and they think that other people thinks it sounds clever, cute, tolerant and smart going into their ears. A bon mot can just as well be an extensive political or social doctrine, such as that Jared Taylor and Dr. Greenburg are discussing above, as it could be a short phrase, bon mot being French for “good word.”

Other such empty phrases: “We’re a nation of immigrants,” “Our diversity is our strength.” I’m sure most people reading this have similar phrases that bug them.

Antidote

@ #23 Tim in Indiana

“By that I mean whites are so terrified of the awesome power of nuclear weapons that the slow descent of their country into a third world morass seems preferable to the alternative….”

In my many years of listening to racial anxieties (from all quarters) I have never heard any fear of nuclear conflagration. Blacks sometimes suggest they will be poisoned through the reservoir water or infected with airborne AIDS, while Whites typically brood about the machetes and pangas of a mau mau insurrection spilling down Fifth Avenue. But nuclear war? Never. Tim, you and your friends can stop worrying about the bomb.

Anonymous

They also lie to latinos. I work in a majority latino high school in the midwest. Almost all are illegal. Almost all are EXTREMELY low IQ and have little interest in academics. They sometimes talk a big talk, but when it’s time to do any ACTUAL work, most demure.

Their activists are so militant, both chavez-type latinos and the liberal white activists who enable them.

“You can do it!” “You want to be a psychologist esmerelda? Of course you can!”

Note: (Our fictional Esmerelda can barely read spanish, cannot read english, even though she came here illegally over three years ago, and barely speaks pre-school English – oh, and she’s 20 years old in grade 11!)

I see this stuff every day. Only about 40% of our seniors graduate each year, and about 80% of them do so because MOST TEACHERS CHEAT to get them through.

Yes, most teachers DO CHEAT in any way they can to get their urban students through the system. Come on! Admins are threatening to fire us all the time if we don’t get ‘little’ DeQuan (who is on parole or in a gang) or Yalisolotte (who is 7+ grade levels behind) to perform. What would you do if you were placed in an impossible situation?

Charles B. Tiffany

The one section of this essay that I found intriguing was his take on KIPP. His intelectual honesty forced him to admit that it worked. His ,well they may have cooked the books shot, was almost liberal in it`s vapidity. I believe in the Declaration of Independence far more than Jefferson ever did. I also believe that Almighty God created us all in His Image.If all children were raised like my grand children in a DC suburb with the best schools,alpha parents,and every educational support idea framed since Plato`s Academy,West African DNA gened people would still be on the low end but that end would be a lot higher than it is now.We never asked their forefathers to sell them to white slave traders but we all made a good profit from it.Even the most racist among you,[ whatever a racist is if it is possible to be one]know and accept that Lincoln was right in his second innaugral address.If every black kid was enrolled in KIPP the black prison population edge would diminish and flash mobs would be seen at the Museum of Natural History.

Charles B. Tiffany

Question Diversity

31 Charles B. Tiffany wrote:

.If every black kid was enrolled in KIPP the black prison population edge would diminish and flash mobs would be seen at the Museum of Natural History.

Doubt it. Below the asterisks is from a comment here at AR from December 2007 by the poster “Jill.” Once you read it, you’ll find out why KIPP “works” and at the same time why it will never “work,” paradoxically.

***

Exactly! That’s what I think every time I read about some “miracle” after-school/summer school program that has managed to bring a select handful of poor blacks up to white standards through intensive remediation. Journalists and teachers rave about how they’ve finally found the key to educational equality, but never mention that the same effort applied to whites would have turned out college-level students and not just mediocre “average” students.

I read an article a year ago about an experimental charter school KIPP academy, I think, that had increased the test scores of poor black 6th & 7th graders close to white average levels. I wish I had saved the link, but I remember the article quite well because it made me want to throw my laptop across the room. The journalist proudly recounted their class schedule:

7am – full breakfast served to ALL students free of charge (thank you tax-payers!). Bacon, eggs, toast, orange juice, etc. No expense spared since the educators believed a heavy breakfast made the kids smarter.

7:30 – 2:30 – regular school day with intensive focus on basic skills in reading, writing, math and science. Class sizes were small and the school had strict discipline requirements with mandated class participation, uniforms, etc. Trouble makers were kicked back to the public school system. School provided free lunch, of course.

2:30 – 5:00 – mandated after school programs on campus. Worst students spent this time in one-on-one tutoring with teachers, better students did sports or art.

5:00 – school-provided dinner in the cafeteria. Yup, you read that right! The educators didn’t trust the parents to feed the kids, and wanted to keep them on campus all day.

Rest of the evening up to 8:30pm or so – SUPERVISED homework. All the kids had to sit at tables and do their homework under the watchful eyes of their teachers. The educators openly admitted that these kids would never do their homework if they weren’t forced to, and the parents wouldn’t make them do it either.

The kids in this school ate all meals at the school free of charge during the week and only went home to sleep at night. Last, but not least, was SATURDAY school!! A half-day of intensive one-on-one tutoring with teachers and community volunteers, and free breakfast and lunch of course!

The journalist admitted that this program was very expensive, but never mentioned that this program involved 3 to 4 times as much teaching time as a regular school. Plus, it was basically an orphanage without bedrooms.

Rather than tweaking standard public schooling, it merely proved that the only dependable way to “close the achievement gap” was spending 4 times as much time and effort, and to take parental duties away from their families and raise the kids under intensive care! Any yet, this was clearly supposed to inspire whites to dump more money into this educational boondoggle.

***

Tim in Indiana

Antidote wrote at 4:11 PM on August 7

In my many years of listening to racial anxieties (from all quarters) I have never heard any fear of nuclear conflagration. Blacks sometimes suggest they will be poisoned through the reservoir water or infected with airborne AIDS

Well, I have heard blacks raising the nuclear issue, but I wasn’t thinking of blacks so much as white liberals.

In any event, this is no defense of liberals. I think it is pathetic that they have so little regard for human nature (especially white nature) that they think we’re just itching to bomb everyone into oblivion unless we welcome hordes of third-world invaders into our country, but that’s the only explanation that makes any sense, to me at least. “Altruism” will only go so far. What whites are doing to this country is not altruism, it’s insanity.

I personally think nuclear weapons are their own solution: they are too horrible to be used and so they won’t be (at least by whites).

Anonymous

8 — Anonymous wrote at 11:47 PM on August 5:

“Some countries (including Canada) deal with the problem by simply never collecting any data about race and school performance. In France I think it is illegal to collect such data. But they have been collecting it for years in the US, so I guess that will not change.”

Interesting point. What I notice here is that France is closer to doing something about immigration and its problems than the U.S. is, so I wonder what the other influencing factors might be, and how they are likely to affect the long term? Could things like a longer tradition of nationalism (in France), a smaller country in general, and a more violent collection of minorities (so far) in France make the difference? Will everything (white racial response) even out over time anyway?

Anonymous

19 — Anonymous wrote at 10:24 AM on August 6:

“When someone highly regarded, qualified and knowledgeable in such matters as Richard Dawkins himself is a party to such lies, what can you expect of politicians? There is no hope.”

I hope not. As one who admires Mr. Dawkin’s intelligence and ability to expose the nonsense of religious belief systems, I have always wondered about why the same intellect doesn’t drive him to other common sense conclusions regarding liberal politics, race,and national destinies. I have always found him a bit too angry in his delivery. This makes me think that he is polarized to the Left, not unlike many conservatives that cannot see the useful aspects of socialism for racial and national survival. Emotionalism always costs IQ points. Just imagine what whites could accomplish if we stopped being so emotional about times like religious convictions? If True Believers showed some flexibility, the Richard Dawkins of the world might be able to see the case of white race realism clearer.

I haven’t given up hope on him, because I haven’t given up hope on ….

Anonymous

To Greenberg, Jared Taylor or anyone else,

What do you want these politicians to do?

Imagine waking up to an America where black intellectual and cultural inferiority were an undeniable fact pressed into every mind, black, white and sundry, with ineluctable force.

Now what? You have a black population that faces a hopeless future of either blue-collar wage slavery or abject servitude with a tiny handful qualified for anything better. Even poor whites can hope their children do better.

In this fantasy world where truth reigns: every black knows that whites know what he also knows, so the jig is up. The black won’t be able to walk amongst whites (or Asians) without feeling this knowledge radiating and refleting back onto him. We won’t be able to live together, but is there really any hope of the “leadership” pushing blacks out? Blacks will look honestly at Detroit and sections of Atlanta and certainly won’t want to go it on their own. Whites, for the sake of the good apples, will not turn against their fellow black citizens en masse and demand they be “relocated” because we’ve all heard about those types of plans before – even if it were really just a population transfer and nothing more sinister would anyone believe or accept such a solution?

Anonymous

Long before I heard of AmRen or Race realism I asked a friend this question:

What if the people of France in the future were entirely made up the minorities of today, but those future inhabitants only spoke French and observed all French customs (like Bastille Day), would it STILL BE FRANCE?

His answer was “yes.”

I didn’t have a definitive answer at that time, but I instinctively felt that it would NOT be France anymore.

graceland

Thank you, Charles B. Tiffany!!!

Truth, Love, and Work (always) for something Better. Bravo and well stated! I say “no more white guilt” paired with the kind of truth and love Tiffany’s mentioning.

Want a winner for us? Stop all the lying liberal claptrap….and hold other whites-and blacks- to the same standard…WHILE AT THE SAME TIME (truth,love, and work)…support programs such as KIPP.

I agree with nearly 100% of everything I read on amren and I’ve been reading regularly for more than 5 years. Please here me out:

Anger, resentment, hatred, bitterness–our emotions– will get US nowhere if we simply lash out and shut down, deny and withdraw $$$ support. We do that and there will be blood in the streets. Let’s push all of this forward with the strength of feeling we have for : Truth, Love, and Betterment. Let;’s do it with Love or at least without anger, resentment, hatred and We’ll Win.

Californian

“The lie becomes the truth and then a lie again.” — Winston Smith in the movie version of Nineteen Eighty-Four.